34 research outputs found

    Exploring the ability of the variable-resolution Community Earth System Model to simulate cryospheric–hydrological variables in High Mountain Asia

    Get PDF
    Earth system models (ESMs) can help to improve the understanding of climate-induced cryospheric–hydrological impacts in complex mountain regions, such as High Mountain Asia (HMA). Coarse ESM grids, however, have difficulties in representing cryospheric–hydrological processes that vary over short distances in complex mountainous environments. Variable-resolution (VR) ESMs can help to overcome these limitations through targeted grid refinement. This study investigates the ability of the VR Community Earth System Model (VR-CESM) to simulate cryospheric–hydrological variables such as the glacier surface mass balance (SMB) over HMA. To this end, a new VR grid is generated, with a regional grid refinement up to 7 km over HMA. Two coupled atmosphere–land simulations are run for the period 1979–1998. The second simulation is performed with an updated glacier cover dataset and includes snow and glacier model modifications. Comparisons are made to gridded outputs derived from a globally uniform 1∘ CESM grid, observation-, reanalysis-, and satellite-based datasets, and a glacier model forced by a regional climate model (RCM). Climatological biases are generally reduced compared to the coarse-resolution CESM grid, but the glacier SMB is too negative relative to observation-based glaciological and geodetic mass balances, as well as the RCM-forced glacier model output. In the second simulation, the SMB is improved but is still underestimated due to cloud cover and temperature biases, missing model physics, and incomplete land–atmosphere coupling. The outcomes suggest that VR-CESM could be a useful tool to simulate cryospheric–hydrological variables and to study climate change in mountainous environments, but further developments are needed to better simulate the SMB of mountain glaciers

    The future sea-level contribution of the Greenland ice sheet: a multi-model ensemble study of ISMIP6

    Get PDF
    The Greenland ice sheet is one of the largest contributors to global mean sea-level rise today and is expected to continue to lose mass as the Arctic continues to warm. The two predominant mass loss mechanisms are increased surface meltwater run-off and mass loss associated with the retreat of marine-terminating outlet glaciers. In this paper we use a large ensemble of Greenland ice sheet models forced by output from a representative subset of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) global climate models to project ice sheet changes and sea-level rise contributions over the 21st century. The simulations are part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). We estimate the sea-level contribution together with uncertainties due to future climate forcing, ice sheet model formulations and ocean forcing for the two greenhouse gas concentration scenarios RCP8.5 and RCP2.6. The results indicate that the Greenland ice sheet will continue to lose mass in both scenarios until 2100, with contributions of 90±50 and 32±17 mm to sea-level rise for RCP8.5 and RCP2.6, respectively. The largest mass loss is expected from the south-west of Greenland, which is governed by surface mass balance changes, continuing what is already observed today. Because the contributions are calculated against an unforced control experiment, these numbers do not include any committed mass loss, i.e. mass loss that would occur over the coming century if the climate forcing remained constant. Under RCP8.5 forcing, ice sheet model uncertainty explains an ensemble spread of 40 mm, while climate model uncertainty and ocean forcing uncertainty account for a spread of 36 and 19 mm, respectively. Apart from those formally derived uncertainty ranges, the largest gap in our knowledge is about the physical understanding and implementation of the calving process, i.e. the interaction of the ice sheet with the ocean

    Insights into the vulnerability of Antarctic glaciers from the ISMIP6 ice sheet model ensemble and associated uncertainty

    Get PDF
    The Antarctic Ice Sheet represents the largest source of uncertainty in future sea level rise projections, with a contribution to sea level by 2100 ranging from −5 to 43 cm of sea level equivalent under high carbon emission scenarios estimated by the recent Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). ISMIP6 highlighted the different behaviors of the East and West Antarctic ice sheets, as well as the possible role of increased surface mass balance in offsetting the dynamic ice loss in response to changing oceanic conditions in ice shelf cavities. However, the detailed contribution of individual glaciers, as well as the partitioning of uncertainty associated with this ensemble, have not yet been investigated. Here, we analyze the ISMIP6 results for high carbon emission scenarios, focusing on key glaciers around the Antarctic Ice Sheet, and we quantify their projected dynamic mass loss, defined here as mass loss through increased ice discharge into the ocean in response to changing oceanic conditions. We highlight glaciers contributing the most to sea level rise, as well as their vulnerability to changes in oceanic conditions. We then investigate the different sources of uncertainty and their relative role in projections, for the entire continent and for key individual glaciers. We show that, in addition to Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers in West Antarctica, Totten and Moscow University glaciers in East Antarctica present comparable future dynamic mass loss and high sensitivity to ice shelf basal melt. The overall uncertainty in additional dynamic mass loss in response to changing oceanic conditions, compared to a scenario with constant oceanic conditions, is dominated by the choice of ice sheet model, accounting for 52 % of the total uncertainty of the Antarctic dynamic mass loss in 2100. Its relative role for the most dynamic glaciers varies between 14 % for MacAyeal and Whillans ice streams and 56 % for Pine Island Glacier at the end of the century. The uncertainty associated with the choice of climate model increases over time and reaches 13 % of the uncertainty by 2100 for the Antarctic Ice Sheet but varies between 4 % for Thwaites Glacier and 53 % for Whillans Ice Stream. The uncertainty associated with the ice–climate interaction, which captures different treatments of oceanic forcings such as the choice of melt parameterization, its calibration, and simulated ice shelf geometries, accounts for 22 % of the uncertainty at the ice sheet scale but reaches 36 % and 39 % for Institute Ice Stream and Thwaites Glacier, respectively, by 2100. Overall, this study helps inform future research by highlighting the sectors of the ice sheet most vulnerable to oceanic warming over the 21st century and by quantifying the main sources of uncertainty

    Data from: High-latitude stratospheric aerosol injection to preserve the Arctic

    No full text
    This data supports the results of "High-latitude stratospheric aerosol injection to preserve the Arctic" (Lee et. al., 2022), which reported: Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been shown in climate models to reduce some impacts of global warming in the Arctic, including the loss of sea ice, permafrost thaw, and reduction of Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) mass; SAI at high latitudes could preferentially target these impacts. In this study, we use the Community Earth System Model to simulate two Arctic-focused SAI strategies, which inject at 60°N latitude each spring with injection rates adjusted to either maintain September Arctic sea ice at 2030 levels (“Arctic Low”) or restore it to 2010 levels (“Arctic High”). Both simulations maintain or restore September Arctic sea ice to within 10% of their respective targets, reduce permafrost thaw, and increase GrIS surface mass balance by reducing runoff. Arctic High reduces these impacts more effectively than a globally-focused SAI strategy that injects similar quantities of SO2 at lower latitudes. However, Arctic-focused SAI is not merely a “reset button” for the Arctic climate, but brings about a novel climate state, including changes to the seasonal cycles of Northern Hemisphere temperature and sea ice and less high-latitude carbon uptake relative to SSP2-4.5. Additionally, while Arctic-focused SAI predominantly cools the Arctic, its effects are not confined to the Arctic, including detectable cooling throughout most of the northern hemisphere for both simulations, increased mid-latitude sulfur deposition, and a southward shift of the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).National Science Foundation, CBET-1818759 and CBET-193164

    A Comparison of the CMIP6 midHolocene

    No full text
    AbstractResults are presented and compared for the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2) simulations of the middle Holocene (MH, 6 ka) and Last Interglacial (LIG, 127 ka). These simulations are designated as Tier 1 experiments (midHolocene and lig127k) for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) and the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project phase 4 (PMIP4). They use the low‐top, standard 1° version of CESM2 contributing to CMIP6 DECK, historical, and future projection simulations, and to other modeling intercomparison projects. The midHolocene and lig127k provide the opportunity to examine the responses in CESM2 to the orbitally induced changes in the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of insolation. The insolation anomalies result in summer warming over the Northern Hemisphere continents, reduced Arctic summer minimum sea ice, and increased areal extent of the North African monsoon. The Arctic remains warm throughout the year. These changes are greater in the lig127k than midHolocene simulation. Other notable changes are reduction of the Niño3.4 variability and Drake Passage transport and a small increase in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation from the piControl to midHolocene to lig127k simulation. Comparisons to paleo‐data and to simulations from previous model versions are discussed. Possible reasons for mismatches with the paleo‐observations are proposed, including missing processes in CESM2, simplifications in the CMIP6 protocols for these experiments, and dating and calibration uncertainties in the data reconstructions
    corecore